Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 846759" data-attributes="member: 2486">Hmmm...well it seems that my analysis seems to provoke controversy... Very good point.  The stacking of archer-based prestige classes makes it a real problem. That's true to a point.  5' step means that the archer can have little loss of utility.  Order of the Bow Initiate Close Combat ability means that the 5' step becomes unnecessary.  Moreover, the meleeist can deal no damage at range, and only a comparable damage to the archer in close combat. Incorrect.  PHB p.105, you can use a bow without penalty.  Indeed, it is the two weapon fighter that takes a penalty.  More to the point, two weapon fighters drop out compared to two-handed fighters.  To keep damage even comparable, you have to soak up a whole lot of two-weapon feats, and the Ambidexterity requirement will cost you in terms of ability distribution (i.e. lower Strength). Melee fighters can wear light armour, but they tend to have lower Dex (and higher Str).  Thus, they must sacrifice defense in order to obtain mobility- archers, with higher Dex, tend to be able to do both.  With regard to mithril, this is expensive for heavy armour, and mithril heavy armour still only allows 20' movement.  Mithril medium armour is barely worthwhile and mithril light armour will cause AC loss (compared to mithril heavy) unless you have very high Dexterity. In terms of individual damage-dealing capacity, the archer can often match the spellcaster or even outgun him in terms of one-to-one damage (the spellcaster is obviously better at area damage).  A powerful archer build can usually inflict enough damage to take out the spellcaster in one round unless he has defenses: and these defenses are usually equally as valid against melee (Wall of Force, Prismatic Sphere etc.)   Well, damage dealing capability, as many have shown above, is comparable in close combat and the archer obviously superior at range.  As for wearing heavier equipment, I fail to see any obvious utility- if you mean carrying heavier equipment, then Bags of Holding all but remove any encumbrance penalties at high level, and as for actually wearing heavy armour, this has little discernible advantage in terms of AC over a light armour-high Dex. That's true.  As I said, at lower levels (1, 2, possibly 3) the meleeist will tend to do more damage, primarily due to Cleave.  Past this level, it will tend to pale.  Combat Reflexes' utility relies on a higher Dex, which the melee machine usually lacks. Ah...oops <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> .  Just have to wait a few levels until GMW...<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Grappling is a problem, but one that can face melee types just as much at higher levels (multiple attacks, 1 AoO/opponent).  Disarm actually works better against meleeists, as the archer typically has a higher best attack, and is always using a large weapon in two hands.  Sunder can be avoided through better opposed attack rolls, and can be used just as easily against melee weapons.  Improved Sunder (the essential feat for any sunderer) effectively means any weapon can be destroyed with comparable ease. Actually, ranged sneak attack can be used for flanking.  Read 'flank' carefully in the PHB glossary.  It means 'To be directly on the other side of an enemy that is threatening the enemy a character is attacking'.  Thus, as long as a meleeist is opposite you, ranged sneak attack does work.  Two archers, however, could not flank. Personally, I genuinely think that the Weapon Master is the best straight melee general purpose PrC, especially since the given meleeist was a greatsword-wielder (invalidating Tempest and Master of Chains).  The archer, incidentally, can get utility by multiclassing to rogue, so let's not descend down the multiclass route.  With regard to the Tempest, in terms of damage-dealing capacity, it is typically *less* than the greatsword-wielder; and the Master of Chains is broadly unimpressive and requires a slew of entry requirements: Superior Weapon Focus and Superior Weapon Specialisation are perks, but are matched by the OotBI.  The problem here is that the bow and the ammunition stack, so even if the meleeist receives equivalent spells, he cannot match the archer.  The archer can also stack up elemental damage, just as the meleeist. High damage, short ranged opponents- DM style?  Taking the first five CR6-10 monsters in the MM: Aboleth (no ranged capability, melee attacks totally 4d6+36 damage + transformation 4 times, Enslave ability limited to 30').  Gargantuan Animated Object (no ranged capability, large melee attack bonus and damage, reach).  Elder Arrowhawk (flying, superior melee attack and damage to ranged attack, ranged attack limited to 45').  Athach (significantly superior melee attack and damage).  Behir (significant melee damage capacity, ranged attack limited to 20').  A mobile archer at range could deal with all of these foes relatively easily; a meleeist would have trouble.  As for flying opponents, meleeists may do fine, but dispel magic against enemy wizards is going to cause trouble, not to mention the fact that the flying meleeist will only get off a maximum one attack in the critical first round of combat.  The same applies for charging a wizard- archers can take down a wizard in round one; meleeist can rarely do so. Sure, it's always useful, but the incremental utility drops.  One attack every other round when you are regularly getting four attacks is only a 1/8th increase; at low levels, when you only got one, it increased it by 1/2.  Furthermore, larger and/or more mobile opponents tend to cut down the availability of Cleave. At high levels, an extra 3rd level spell is relatively immaterial.  As for resources, the extra +4 magic weapon is only really worth 32,000 gold pieces, a relatively small amount for a high level character.  If the fighter spends this upgrading his weapon, he can get a +3 of three elemental abilities, not adding much to the incremental utility. Sorry, my mistake.  You can, however, add alignment powers: holy is usually quite a good stand-by for good characters. Assuming an 18 base stat (half orc, rolled 16 + 2 racial), five ability boosts and a +6 Belt, this only comes to 29.  With five wishes, (which I would certainly call unusual!) it still only makes 34.  The best mighty bow goes to effectively 18, so you can just scrape in if you use five wishes.  Who was complaining about excess resources. Use some worked examples!  First ten creatures (MM) with CR16-20.  Planetar (not immune), Solar (not immune), Nalfeshnee (not immune), Marilith (not immune), Balor (not immune), Pit Fiend (not immune), various dragons (not immune), Formian Queen (not immune), Nightshades (3) (immune!).  Three of ten.  And typically those that are immune (undead, constructs, elementals) are far nastier in melee than in ranged combat.  A 13th archer can run rings round an iron golem, but a fighter would have trouble. As I said, a metamagicked buff.  The high level (16+) party cleric is not going to miss a 5th level spell or so. No need to get into hyperbole.  I gave the archer an additional +4 weapon (32,000gp).   You gave your meleeist mithril heavy armour (presumably) costing 9400gp more than mithirl light armour (8000gp for mithril, 1400gp for difference between chain shirt and full plate), and have 22400gp left the difference.  Slightly under 3% of the 20th level character's wealth.  Equalising the fighter's weapon by adding a couple of plusses still doesn't make up for the efficient stacking of arrow and bow.  I equalised equipment as requested, giving the meleeist a better weapon.  The buff spells needed are only a marginal difference for a high level caster, and I made a slip on Magic Weapon.  With regard to Sunder, Disarm et al.- Sunder is generally roughly as effective with a half-competent sunderer and is out of most monster's league (few +5 weapons to sunder with), Disarm is actually harder against an archer (see above) which only leaves grappling, which meleeist are prone to on secondary attacks (especially given generally inferior touch AC).  The archer is not invincible, and in a straight one-to-one fight, it's probably a close call, especially if the meleeist fights intelligently.  Yet in a party setting, the meleeist is sadly lacking.  Spellcasters can cast their battery of spells fearing but a single pitiful attack from the meleeist; the archer can take them out, not to mention the greater ease of readied attacks.  High damage melee monsters fare very well against fighters but less so against archers, of which there are a whole slew, culminating in the infamous tarrasque.  Flying opponents, particularly at the mid-levels, are easier to deal with using archers than meleeists.Shove an archer and a meleeist in an arena and it's probably a fair fight (if it's a smallish arena).  Put them in an average campaign and the archer will tend to be superior.Edit: Enkhidu- sorry I missed you out <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> !  Your point about magic and prestige classes is certainly part of the problem, though the fact is that the magic and the prestige classes *are* out there <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> .  I think that your sensible suggestion (and many others') of not allowing bow and arrow magic bonuses to stack would go a huge way to alleviating the problem.</blockquote>

Verification